Lostock Sustainable Energy Plant - Environmental Statement - IEMA

Lostock Sustainable Energy Plant - Environmental Statement
Non-Technical Summary
February 2010

Sustainable Energy Plant
Lostock, Northwich, Cheshire
Environmental Statement: Non-Technical Summary
Prepared by:
On behalf of Brunner Mond and E.ON Energy from Waste
UK Limited
February 2010
RPS Planning & Development
Mallams Court
18 Milton Park
Abingdon
Oxon
OX14 4RP
Tel 01235 838 200
Fax 01235 838 225
Email rpsox@rpsgroup.com

Non Technical Summary
Contents
Page
1 Introduction S1
2 Why the Project is Needed S2
3 The Project S4
− Project Site and Description
− Alternatives
4 Consultation, Scoping and Methodology S8
− Consultation
− Further Consultation
− Scoping
− Methodology
5 Environmental Effects S10
− Introduction
− Traffic and Transportation
− Air and Climate
− Landscape and Visual Effects
− Ecology and Nature Conservation
− Hydrology and Flood Risk
− Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions
− Noise and Vibration
− Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
− Socio-Economic Effects
6 Further Information S18
Figure
Figure 1.1
Figure 1.2
Figure 2
Figure 3
Site Location
Site Boundary
Proposed Site Layout Plan
Photomontage of Proposed SEP
RPS
February 2010
S-i
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
1 Introduction
1.1 On behalf of Brunner Mond and E.ON Energy from Waste UK Limited (the applicants), RPS
has been instructed to undertake an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and produce an
Environmental Statement (ES) for a proposed Sustainable Energy Plant (SEP) on the site of
the former Lostock Power Station, near Northwich, Cheshire.
1.2 The ES accompanies an application to the Department of Energy and Climate Change
(DECC) under Section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989 for development consent for the SEP.
1.3 The ES has been prepared under the requirements of the Electricity Works (Environmental
Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 (the Regulations), as amended.
Schedule 4 of those regulations requires that a summary of the ES be provided in nontechnical
language.
1.4 This Non-Technical Summary includes a summary of key information regarding the proposed
SEP and how environmental and social issues will be addressed during the construction and
future operation of the proposed SEP.
1.5 The SEP would have an output of up to 60 Megawatts of electricity (MWe). The SEP would
also be capable of producing up to 100 tonnes of steam per hour for supply to Brunner Mond.
In order to produce this output, the SEP would require about 600,000 tonnes of fuel, in the
form of non hazardous pre-treated waste derived fuel a year.
1.6 The SEP would improve the overall sustainability of energy use by Brunner Mond, providing
approximately one third of the required heat energy at the site and therefore displacing a
significant quantity of fossil fuel. Operation of the proposed SEP would contribute to the
reduction in greenhouse gases.
RPS
February 2010
S-1
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
2 Why the Project is Needed
Need for the Project
2.1 The proposed SEP would improve the overall sustainability of energy use at the Brunner
Mond sites providing approximately one third of the required heat energy and therefore
resulting in a significant reduction in the use of fossil fuels and production of renewable
energy from a good quality facility.
2.2 Energy policy highlights the need for energy from waste projects. The most recent guidance,
draft National Policy Statements for Energy set out the Governments position on energy
infrastructure. The Draft National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy Infrastructure (EN-
3) states that there is a significant need for new major energy infrastructure.
2.3 In addition to providing a substantial part of the required energy for Brunner Mond’s
operations, the proposed SEP would contribute towards the aims of waste policy by reducing
the UK's reliance upon landfill as a final destination for waste. This aim is set out in policy at
European, national and regional levels. At each level, measurable objectives for that
reduction are provided with incremental targets set over time.
2.4 It is recognised that the continuing practice of large scale landfilling of waste represents a
missed opportunity and the potential to reuse a large proportion of that waste is being
overlooked. In the case of waste that cannot be recycled, its use as a fuel material is the next
most appropriate in terms of the waste hierarchy.
Alternatives Considered
2.5 A review of possible alternative sites for the project has been carried out. A key consideration
is that a primary purpose of the proposed energy from waste facility would be to supply steam
to the Lostock site. Given that it is not practical to transport steam over long distances, sites
on or close to the Lostock or Winnington sites were considered to be preferable.
2.6 Sites at both Lostock and Winnington owned by Brunner Mond were considered for the
proposed SEP.
2.7 The Lostock site has an existing rail link from the Manchester-Chester railway line. In
addition, the site has existing rail sidings that could be used to receive and off-load fuel. The
site can also be accessed from the A530, which connects to the M6 south at Junction 18
(Middlewich), with the A559 to the north, the A556 east to the M6/M60 north and Manchester
and to the west to Chester and North Wales.
2.8 The Winnington site also has a rail connection, but suitable off loading facilities would be
more difficult to achieve. In addition, the site’s location in relation to the Northwich urban area
is less favourable in traffic terms.
RPS
February 2010
S-2
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
2.9 In terms of the likely environmental effects, it is noted that the land at Lostock is previously
developed land currently occupied by the former Lostock Power Station. The site has
therefore been previously used for energy generation purposes and is currently occupied by
buildings formerly used for that purpose. The new SEP would thus continue with a similar
land use, replacing a former power station with a modern plant operated to current standards.
2.10 Sufficient land would be available at both sites. Following demolition of the existing power
station, the site at Lostock would be large enough to accommodate the project with a suitable
layout for efficient plant operation. There is an adjoining area of land that is suitable for
temporary use as a laydown area for construction materials.
2.11 In terms of local planning policy, much of the land required at the Lostock site is also allocated
in the Cheshire Waste Local Plan 2007 for waste management uses, including thermal
treatment. The land at Winnington is not allocated in the Waste Local Plan.
2.12 On balance, the Lostock site was chosen as the preferred site for a number of reasons. The
site benefits from better road access with appropriate rail facilities more easily provided. Use
of the Lostock site would continue the former land use and involve similar features to the
former power generating station. These reasons are considered to be sufficient, but are
strongly reinforced by the fact that land at Lostock is allocated in the Waste Local Plan for
waste management purposes including thermal treatment.
2.13 Alternative site layouts and technologies have also been considered within the Environmental
Statement. A number of site layouts were considered, leading to the selection of the current
design and site layout as most appropriate for the site. No more suitable alternative
technologies were identified.
RPS
February 2010
S-3
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
3 Project
Key Characteristics of the Project
3.1 The applicants propose to develop a Sustainable Energy Plant (SEP) on the site of the former
power station on the existing Brunner Mond site at Lostock. The proposed SEP would have a
total gross maximum electricity capacity of up to 60 MWe gross (53 MWe net) and would be
capable of producing approximately 100 tonnes of steam per hour directly to Brunner Mond.
The SEP would consume approximately 600,000 tonnes of pre-treated waste derived fuel per
annum (tpa). The plant would improve the overall sustainability of energy use by Brunner
Mond, providing approximately one third of the required heat energy at the site and therefore
displacing a significant quantity of fossil fuel.
3.2 The application site, as shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2, occupies an area of approximately 9.2
ha. This includes the following components:
• Main SEP site, including Ash Handling Facility and Rail Reception Facility: 6.4 ha;
• Construction laydown area for main site: 1.9 ha;
• Relocated coke store: 0.9 ha.
3.3 The main SEP site comprises an area of approximately 6.4 ha on the site of the former
Lostock Power Station site (now redundant). The site is bounded to the east by the Trent
and Mersey Canal and to the north by the adjoining Brunner Mond chemical works and the
brine purification plant owned by Ineos. The main site includes land to the west of the SEP
which would provide an Ash Handling Facility and the Rail Reception Facility for the waste
derived fuel. This area is currently occupied by the existing rail connection for the site and a
coke store.
3.4 In addition to the main SEP site, an area of approximately 0.9 ha of land to the north of the
site is included in the red line boundary for the project. This land is required to provide for the
relocated coke store for the existing Brunner Mond facility.
3.5 A further 1.9 ha of land to the east of the SEP site has been identified for temporary use as a
construction laydown area.
3.6 The SEP would consume approximately 600,000 tonnes of pre-treated waste derived fuel per
annum (tpa). The waste sources would include pre-treated Municipal Solid Waste (MSW),
Commercial and Industrial Waste (C&I) and Solid Recovered Fuel (SRF). Treated municipal
waste, such as MSW and RDF, is the product of the processing of raw municipal waste by, for
example, mechanical and biological treatment (MBT). MBT facilities do not form part of the
project subject to the current application.
RPS
February 2010
S-4
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
3.7 In addition, the applicants may wish to use the facility to burn other non-hazardous materials,
such as biomass, subject to the approval of the Environment Agency and grant of the
necessary Environmental Permit.
Proposed Site Layout
3.8 Figure 2 provides a proposed layout plan for the SEP. The main SEP building would have a
height of up to 48 m, with two co-located emissions stacks 90 m in height. The Ash Handling
Facility would be located to the west of the main SEP site adjacent to the rail connection.
3.9 In addition to the SEP and Ash Handling Facility, the following associated infrastructure would
be provided as part of the project:
• On-site pipelines for the collection and distribution of steam;
• Ancillary development including internal roads, parking, gatehouse weighbridge, rail
connection, water treatment, fuel store, fencing, landscaping and offices;
• Grid connection for electricity export, including transformer and an indicative cable route
to the existing substation at Hartford;
• Relocated coke store (relocating the existing coke store currently adjacent to the rail
connection to an area to the north of the SEP site).
Site Operation
3.10 The SEP would produce heat and power 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. It would therefore
operate continuously throughout the year, except during shutdowns for maintenance.
3.11 Deliveries of fuel to the site would be scheduled to match available routings and the needs of
the fuel suppliers (i.e. waste processing plants). It is anticipated that the majority of fuel
would be delivered between Monday and Saturday. The incoming fuel would be stored in
sealed containers (for rail deliveries) and in the fuel bunkers to supply the plant during the
night and over the weekend and bank holidays.
3.12 The SEP would employ approximately 50 full time employees comprising operator shift staff,
maintenance employees, weighbridge operators, clerical and administrative staff and plant
management.
3.13 The balance between office and plant workers and shift patterns have yet to be precisely
determined. However, for the purposes of the ES it is assumed that the plant would have 4
shift teams. Each day there would be 3 shifts, operating from 7am to 3pm, 3pm to 11pm and
11pm to 7am. Eight of the 50 employees would be office staff working a typical 9am to 5pm
shift with the remainder covering four shifts with one of these shifts being a rest day.
RPS
February 2010
S-5
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
Traffic
3.14 The site is accessed via Griffith’s Road (the A530) which connects directly to the M6 south at
Junction 18 and to M6 North (Junction 19) and the M56/M60 via the A556. However, traffic
from the A559 to the north is restricted due to the low bridge under the railway.
3.15 A main line standard rail connection to the site already exists and is used for a daily delivery
of limestone by rail from Buxton.
3.16 During operation, traffic would arise from the following activities:
• Delivery of fuel;
• Import of materials for the flue gas treatment chemicals (although it should be noted that
the majority of such chemicals are manufactured on site and would be provided via on
site transfer);
• Export of residues from the flue gas treatment process;
• Export of bottom ash;
• Export of fuel not meeting plant specifications;
• Deliveries of materials in support of the day-to-day operation of the plant (e.g. spares,
office consumables);
• Employee vehicles.
3.17 It is anticipated the most likely scenario for fuel deliveries to the site would be approximately
two thirds of fuel delivered by rail and the remaining one third by road. This scenario equates
to approximately 1-2 trains and 35 HGVs associated with fuel deliveries per day.
3.18 For the purposes of the assessment, a worst case scenario has also been modelled to
consider the effects of all fuel imported by road. This is very much a worst case as it is likely
that the majority of fuel would be transported by rail as set out above. This would equate to
105 HGVs associated with fuel deliveries per day.
Construction
3.19 The main focus for construction work for the project would be within the main SEP site.
During construction, an additional area of land to the east of the main site and canal (between
Griffiths Road and the canal) would be utilised as a construction laydown area and for
temporary construction facilities. In addition, construction works would be required for the
grid connection.
3.20 The following timescale is anticipated:
• Construction, including demolition of the former Lostock Power Station, commencement:
Q4 2011;
RPS
February 2010
S-6
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
• Construction completion: Q1, 2015;
• Commissioning: Q2, 2015;
• Operation: Q3, 2015.
3.21 The first stage in the construction works would be the relocation of the existing coke store and
of the existing Brunner Mond buildings and pipebridges on site. Construction of the facilities
on the main site is anticipated to take approximately 3.5 years, including demolition of the
existing buildings.
3.22 Construction operations would generally take place between the following hours:
• 07:00 – 18:00 Monday to Friday
• 07:00 – 13:00 Saturday
3.23 Intrusive work outside of these hours would be by prior agreement of the Local Planning
Authority, except in the case of any emergency. However, it is envisaged that non-intrusive
activities (such as electrical installations, plumbing and similar activities) would be undertaken
outside of these hours in order to minimise overall construction time. HGV movements
associated with such activities would be insignificant.
RPS
February 2010
S-7
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
4 Consultation, Scoping and Methodology
Consultation
4.1 Consultation has been carried out throughout the evolution of the project. Brunner Mond and
E.ON planned a consultation programme to ensure that the views of all stakeholders,
including residents, are sought and considered.
4.2 All residents within a 2 mile radius (approximately) of the site were sent an information leaflet
notifying them to the project proposal and the rationale behind it. A community exhibition was
held locally on 1 st and 2 nd December 2009.
4.3 Ongoing consultation has been supported by a webpage attached to the Brunner Mond
website www.brunnermond.com which provides additional detail, building upon the initial
leaflet distribution.
4.4 Consultation will remain open and continue throughout the consideration of the application.
Scoping
4.5 The process of identifying the issues to consider in an Environmental Statement is known as
scoping. A Scoping Report for the project was issued in October 2009. It provided an initial
view of the effects likely to be associated with the project and the broad approach to be taken
to environmental assessment. Consultation began with the relevant planning authority,
Cheshire West and Chester Council (CWCC) and DECC. CWCC, DECC and statutory
consultees such as Natural England and the Environment Agency had the opportunity to
comment on the topics to be included in the ES and the methods of assessment to be used.
Responses from the authorities and consultees were used to inform the ES.
4.6 As a result of this exercise, the following topics were identified as requiring consideration
within the ES:
• Traffic and transport;
• Air quality;
• Ecology and nature conservation;
• Hydrology and flood risk;
• Hydrogeology and ground conditions;
• Noise & vibration;
• Archaeology and cultural heritage;
• Socio-economic effects.
RPS
February 2010
S-8
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
4.7 Summaries of each of the above topics are provided in Section 5 of this Non-Technical
Summary.
Methodology
4.8 The assessment of each environmental topic forms a separate chapter of the ES. For each
topic, the methodology adopted has been set out, together with a description of existing
(baseline) environmental conditions. The likely effects of the project have then been identified
and their significance assessed.
4.9 The significance of an effect has been assessed taking into account factors such as extent
and magnitude of effect, duration and sensitivity of the receiving environment. The following
levels of significance have been used for assessment:
• Substantial;
• Major;
• Moderate;
• Minor;
• Neutral
4.10 Where an effect is described as ‘neutral’ this means that there is either no effect or that the
effect is considered to be negligible. All other levels of significance apply to both adverse and
beneficial effects.
RPS
February 2010
S-9
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
5 Environmental Effects
Introduction
5.1 The environmental effects have been addressed for each of the specialised topics of the ES.
These are summarised below.
Traffic and Transport
5.2 The traffic and transport chapter in the ES sets out an assessment of the environmental
effects of the transport associated with the project. The assessment has been undertaken in
accordance with relevant national guidelines. Existing transport conditions have been
established through site visit, relevant traffic survey data and other data sources. The
transport baseline conditions in the opening year (2015) have been established by taking into
account background traffic growth and traffic associated with other committed developments
in the area.
5.3 It is considered likely that a significant proportion (up to two thirds) of pre-treated waste
derived fuel for the SEP would be delivered by rail using the existing rail connection, with
approximately one third being delivered by road. However, a worst case scenario of all fuel
delivered by road has also been considered.
5.4 The assessments undertaken have demonstrated that as a worst case the project would
increase total daily traffic flows by approximately 3% on the A530 south of the site access in
2015.
5.5 With respect to the Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) component of traffic, in the worst case
scenario, the project traffic would lead to an increase the HGV content on the A550 south of
the site. Therefore, in accordance with the IEMA guidelines, further more detailed
assessments were undertaken. These established that such increases are unlikely to create
any significant effect upon the road network. The environmental assessments undertaken
have demonstrated there would be no significant impact with respect to visual effects, noise
or vibration, severance, driver delay, pedestrian delay, pedestrian amenity, accidents and
safety, hazardous loads, air pollution or dust and dirt.
5.6 Although the assessment indicates that the effects would not be significant, the applicants
would consider measures to minimise further the effects of the project or support
enhancements to the local road network, such as contributions towards the junctions in the
local area that are currently overcapacity or routing agreements.
Air Quality
5.7 An assessment of the air quality effects associated with the construction and operation of the
proposed SEP has been undertaken. Assessment of the existing conditions has identified
RPS
February 2010
S-10
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
that the application site is not located within any designated Air Quality Management Area
(AQMA).
5.8 During the construction phase, dust nuisance effects and emissions from plant associated
with on-site construction and the potential effects associated with emissions from construction
vehicles on the local road network have been considered. The London Best Practice Guide
has been used to establish the risk of causing potential air quality impacts during the
construction phase. Measures to minimise the risk of dust nuisance during the construction
phase are adopted as part of the project. Any such effects would be short-term and no nonreversible
effects during construction are expected. The overall effect during the construction
phase is considered to be neutral.
5.9 During the operational phase, the principal source of atmospheric emissions from the SEP
would be pollutants emitted from the stacks after treatment in the flue gas cleaning system.
5.10 Modelling has been undertaken to consider the appropriate stack height for the SEP, based
on which the stack height of 90 m has been determined. Based on this stack height, detailed
atmospheric dispersion modelling has been undertaken to predict the effects of the operation
of the SEP on ground level pollutant concentrations at a range of locations. This assessment
has identified effects of neutral to minor adverse significance.
5.11 The assessment has shown that the air quality effects associated with operational traffic are
likely to be neutral.
5.12 The combined air quality effects associated with the stacks and traffic have been calculated at
nearby sensitive receptors. The modelling has identified that such effects are likely to be
neutral.
5.13 The large separation distance between the SEP and the nearest residential receptors is
anticipated to ensure that the risk of odour nuisance would be low and effects are considered
to be of neutral significance. Any odours that may occur are likely to be confined to delivery
of the fuel and, therefore, would be localised and of short duration.
5.14 Stack emissions from other proposed industrial operations have been considered
qualitatively. An analysis of the point of maximum concentration from each process
concludes that the maximum cumulative contributions are likely to be ‘very small’ and the
significance would be neutral. Cumulative pollutant concentrations are expected to be below
the relevant criteria set for the protection of human health.
5.15 Ammonia emissions from the existing Bedminster Bio-Energy Plant have been modelled to
determine the combined effect of operating both plants simultaneously. Emissions from the
Bedminster Plant have been taken from an air quality assessment submitted as part of the
planning application. There are not anticipated to be significant cumulative effects.
RPS
February 2010
S-11
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
Landscape and Visual Effects
5.16 The project is located on the site of the former Lostock Power Station. The context of the site
is divided between the contrasting environments of the industrial landscape of the existing
and former industrial area, the townscape of Northwich and its adjacent settlements to the
southwest and northwest, and the farmed and previously mined landscape to the east.
5.17 The study area for the assessment of landscape, townscape and visual effects extends to a
15km radius from the site. The extent of potential visibility has been established for the
stacks and buildings by producing Zones of Theoretical Visibility.
5.18 There are no designated landscapes or features of note which lie within the site area.
However, the Trent and Mersey Canal runs immediately adjacent to the site, and the site is
located within an area of the Mersey Forest, an environmental regeneration initiative, of which
the Northwich Woodlands to the north of the River Weaver form part. The Northwich
Woodlands provide more than 350 hectares of parkland open to the public and includes
Marbury Country Park, Anderton Nature Park and Neumann’s Flashes.
5.19 The project site forms part of the Lostock Plain landscape character area as defined in the
Vale Royal Landscape Character Supplementary Planning Document.
5.20 Landscape proposals have been included as an integral part of the SEP. The assessment of
landscape/townscape and visual effects has been undertaken based on the scheme at year
one after completion, when the planting proposals would be newly established.
5.21 The changes that would occur in the Lostock Plain character area as a result of the
development of the SEP could be accommodated within the landscape. The poor condition of
the industrial landscape of the site and the lack of significant features or designations, provide
the opportunity for introducing the new elements of the proposals without unacceptably
significant adverse effects. The project would not result in the loss of any key landscape
elements.
5.22 From many viewpoint locations, the existing edge of the Griffiths Road industrial area is
prominent or dominates views towards the project site within its urban fringe location. The
replacement of the redundant power station with development of a similar nature would not be
uncharacteristic or at odds with the adjoining landscape, although this project presents an
opportunity of enhancement through modern industrial architecture and design.
5.23 In close and medium range views from the south, including Griffiths Park and the Trent and
Mersey Canal Path, people would gain views of the proposed buildings and structures as
prominent and sometimes dominant elements in front of an extensive backdrop of existing
industrial development in the area.
5.24 In close range views from the east people would see the tops of buildings and stacks, above
intervening industrial development and lime beds, as prominent new elements.
RPS
February 2010
S-12
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
5.25 In mid-distance views from the south at the edge of Rudheath the stacks would be visible
alongside existing industry above housing or landform. Distant views of the proposals would
be seen as part of a broad area of visually complex industrial development.
5.26 Distant views would likely contain the taller elements of the SEP including the proposed
stacks in a view that does not already contain existing views of industry.
5.27 The overall visual effect during operation can be summarised as moderate to minor adverse
(generally where the stacks are introduced to a view that contains no industry or the addition
of new buildings such as the ash handling facility) to neutral to minor beneficial (such as
where existing industry and the characteristics of industry exist and where the project would
add a modern facility within the existing industrial landscape).
Ecology and Nature Conservation
5.28 The proposed SEP has been subject to a desktop study to identify any features of ecological
or nature conservation importance. This study has confirmed that the site itself is not subject
to any nature conservation designation.
5.29 The nearest statutory designated site is Witton Lime Beds (partly reinstated lime waste over
capped domestic waste) which is a site of national importance and is located over 1.5 km to
the north west of the SEP site. The site is designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI). The manmade lime beds are being colonised by a wide range of plant species many
of which are rare in Cheshire and more typical of dune systems.
5.30 The nearest site designated for its international ecological importance is Midland Meres &
Mosses Phase 1 RAMSAR site, which is located some 8 km from the project site near
Knutsford. The site is designated for its diverse range of habitats from open water to raised
bog. The site supports a number of rare species of plants associated with wetlands including
five nationally scarce species together with an assemblage of rare wetland invertebrates. No
effects on any designated sites are likely to result from the project.
5.31 A Phase 1 Habitat Survey of the project site was undertaken to identify the habitat types
present and the potential for any notable species. These surveys, together with the
information received from consultees, concluded that there are no habitats of nature
conservation significance within the proposed site boundary.
5.32 Three protected species have been recorded within the SEP site, these being:
• Two pipistrelle bat roosts located within the power station and turbo alternator buildings;
• Barn owl nesting site located within a disused building on the main site; and
• Peregrine falcon nesting sites located immediately outside the site boundary and
recorded using the former power station buildings.
RPS
February 2010
S-13
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
5.33 It should also be noted that for the purpose of the submission it has been assumed that a
population of reptile species are present on the SEP site. The desk study records also
confirm that other protected species are known to be present within the local area, such as
otters, water voles, badgers and amphibians.
5.34 A number of measures are included as part of the project to avoid or reduce effects in relation
to ecology and nature conservation. These include retention of features or elements of value
as far as practicable, adoption of a Construction Environmental Management Plan to control
effects arising during the construction phase and measures to minimise the effects on the
local wildlife.
5.35 Measures have been provided for all the protected species recorded on the development site.
These measures would create habitats, provide connectivity, and safeguard the existing
wildlife on site.
5.36 Taking into account the above, no significant ecological effects have been identified by this
assessment.
Hydrology and Flood Risk
5.37 The hydrology and flood risk chapter of the ES assesses the likely significant environmental
effects of the project on the water environment, including flood risk, water quality and
drainage.
5.38 Construction works for the SEP would be undertaken in accordance with a Construction
Environmental Management Plan (CEMP), which would include measures to prevent adverse
effects on water resources.
5.39 A Flood Risk Assessment has been undertaken which shows that the site is located outside
the 1 in 1000 year flood plain and is therefore at a low risk of flooding.
5.40 As part of the project, environmental enhancement measures would be incorporated in to the
design, including:
• A new drainage system incorporating pollution prevention measures to meet current
requirements;
• Surface water attenuation storage; and
• Bunding to any chemical or material storage areas in accordance with current
requirements.
5.41 The proposed SEP would operate under an Environmental Permit which would include the
requirements to monitor discharges to the water environment.
5.42 Taking account of the measures forming part of the project, it is considered that the SEP
would have a neutral to moderate beneficial effect on the water environment.
RPS
February 2010
S-14
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
Hydrogeology and Ground Conditions
5.43 Ground and groundwater conditions have been reviewed in the context of the historical land
uses of the site. This has comprised a walk over survey and assessment of previous desk
studies and site investigation records, including review of historical maps and plans for the
site.
5.44 The site is located on land at the former Lostock Power Station, constructed in the early
1960s. The site was previously used for the disposal of lime waste but between 1940 and
1950 the lime deposits were cleared from the area and the land redeveloped for the coal fired
power station. The site also includes a coke storage yard, rail sidings and an area of
undeveloped land on the east bank of the Trent and Mersey Canal which would be used as
the laydown area for construction materials. The surrounding area has been used for the
production of caustic soda, chlorine, bleach and soda ash since the late 19th century and
much of the surrounding land has also been used for lime waste disposal. As a result of the
previous use of the site and surrounding area potential sources of contamination have been
identified.
5.45 Previous investigations have shown the presence of made ground consisting variously of
sandstone, ash, concrete, clinker, brick, coke, slag, cobble and asphalt. Contamination
sampling included within the scope of the previous investigations found concentrations of
calcium and high pH considered likely to be associated with waste from historical activities.
Slightly elevated concentrations of hydrocarbons were also identified although the
contamination was not widespread.
5.46 Additional contamination investigations would be required following the demolition of the
existing structures and clearance of the site. It is envisaged that the scope of such
investigations and reporting of the findings would be undertaken as a condition of
development consent. In the event that contamination is identified by further site
investigations, a remedial strategy would be developed whereby excavation would be avoided
where feasible within the design. However, where such avoidance is not possible, options
would be considered for the re-use of material on-site, treatment of contaminated soils and /
or removal of material to appropriately licensed disposal facility off site. The approach would
however be to minimise the need to remove material off site.
5.47 Brunner Mond’s existing site, of which the project site is part, is currently regulated by the
Environment Agency. The proposed use of the site as an SEP would also be a regulated
activity. Consequently it will be necessary to apply for a partial surrender and new permit, or
partial transfer and subsequent modification to reflect the proposed activities. In order to
accept a surrender application the Environment Agency would need to be satisfied that the
site does not represent an unacceptable risk to the environment and that site conditions have
not materially changed since the original baseline investigation.
RPS
February 2010
S-15
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
5.48 Development of the site provides the opportunity to address any existing contamination.
Excavation of contaminated soils and remediation, if required, as part of the project would
mitigate existing risks associated with contamination which would result in an overall
moderate beneficial effect.
Noise and Vibration
5.49 The noise and vibration effects of the construction and operation of the proposed SEP on
residential and recreational receptors have been predicted and assessed in accordance with
international, national and local standards and guidance. Attended short-term and
unattended long term surveys have been undertaken to determine the baseline noise levels at
locations representative of the potentially most affected noise sensitive receptors. Survey
locations comprised two long term unattended noise surveys and two short-term attended
surveys at separate locations in the area:
• Location LT1 (Long term): 4 St John’s Close (about 370m south of the site)
• Location LT2 (Long term): Lostock Gralam Bridge (about 650m east of the site)
• Location ST1 (Short term): James Street/Hargreaves Road (about 480m west-southwest
of the site)
• Location ST2 (Short term): Griffiths Park (adjoining the westernmost part of the site)
5.50 Noise emissions during the construction and operation of the facility have been predicted
using a detailed computer noise model. The results of the noise and vibration assessment
indicate that significant adverse noise or vibration effects would not be expected to occur at
sensitive residential receptors during either the construction or operational phases of the
project, provided that (in the operational phase) appropriate measures are taken for noise
control at the ash handling facility.
Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
5.51 The archaeology and cultural heritage chapter of the ES deals with the potential effects of the
project on cultural heritage resources, including buried archaeological remains, historic
buildings and historic landscapes. The assessment addresses temporary (construction)
effects as well as any permanent effects resulting from the operation of the project.
5.52 The project site lies partially within and also adjacent to the Trent and Mersey Canal
Conservation Area, designated by the former Vale Royal Borough. A Grade II listed structure,
a milestone on the canal, is also directly adjacent to part of the project site.
5.53 The route of a Roman road passes through the project site, which also contains the site of a
small farmstead depicted on early detailed maps of the area. More recently, there has been
considerable industrial development within the project site, starting in the late 19th century
and continuing throughout the 20th century.
RPS
February 2010
S-16
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
5.54 The assessment has concluded that all of the effects of the project on historic environment
resources would be neutral.
Socio-Economic Effects
5.55 The potential social and economic effects of the project were examined. Two principal areas
of such effects were identified:
• Likely job creation in the construction and operational stages of the project; and
• The possible effects in those stages on amenity in the area.
5.56 Baseline conditions were established using a number of sources of information, notably the
2001 Census and the NOMIS Labour Market Profiles. These covered topics such as car
ownership, occupation, economic activity rates, unemployment and travel to work. For
amenity, local sources of information were used. The summary of baseline conditions
concluded that the former Vale Royal area of Cheshire, in which Northwich is the largest
town, displayed some characteristics, for example in health, occupation, industry and
economic activity rates, which were similar to England and Wales. However, this part of
Cheshire, within relatively easy reach of Manchester and Liverpool, shows very high levels of
travel to work by car. Vale Royal depends heavily on other areas for jobs; net out-commuting
was equivalent to nearly 20% of the resident working population.
5.57 This part of Cheshire is heavily industrialised and does not contain areas designated for their
landscape quality. Amenity issues were confined to the locality – in particular the use of the
Trent and Mersey Canal and the footpath alongside it.
5.58 In terms of effects, it was concluded that the effects on employment would be moderately
beneficial in the construction stage, and provide minor benefits in the operational stage.
5.59 Much of the chemicals industry including the manufacture of soda ash is highly energy
intensive, and energy represents a higher proportion of costs than in many other
manufacturing industries. Leaving aside any benefits to the environment arising from a
reduced reliance on fossil fuels, the project would help to ensure Brunner Mond’s continuing
viability and therefore its position as a mainstay of the local and wider economy. This is
considered to be an effect of moderate beneficial significance.
RPS
February 2010
S-17
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
6 Further Information
6.1 Representations regarding this application should be directed to:
John Swift
Department of Energy and Climate Change
3 Whitehall Place
London
SW1A 2AW
6.2 Copies of the Environmental Statement, including the Non-Technical Summary, can be
viewed at the offices of the relevant planning authority or at Northwich Local Library. The
address for viewing copies is:
Cheshire West and Chester Council
Wyvern House, The Drumber
Winsford
CW7 1AH
And
Northwich Local Library
Witton Street
Northwich, Cheshire
CW9 5DR
6.3 Comments, queries or requests for information concerning the Environmental Statement
should be addressed to:
RPS
Mallams Court
18 Milton Park
Abingdon
Oxford OX14 4RP
Quoting reference JNP2227B.
6.4 Further copies of the ES are available from RPS (at the address above) at a cost of £250.
The ES is also available on CD Rom at a cost of £10. Copies of the Non Technical Summary
are available free of charge.
RPS
February 2010
S-18
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
Figures
RPS
February 2010
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Non Technical Summary
Figure 1.1
Site Location
RPS
February 2010
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Legend
Proposed Site Boundary
Rev: Date: Amendment: Name: Checked:
Data Source: RPS 2010
Status: FINAL
File: O:\2227B Sustainable Energy Plant\Tech\GIS\2227D_100204MP_SiteLocation.mxd
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2010 License number 0100031673
Mallams Court 18 Milton Park Abingdon Oxon Ox14 4RP
T 01235 821888 F 01235 820351 E rpsox@rpsgroup.com W www.rpsroup.com
Client: Brunner Mond & E.ON
Project: Lostock Sustainable Energy Plant
Title:
Scale: A3 @ 1:50,000
0 0.5 1km
Date: Feb 2010 Datum: OSGB36 Projection: BNG
Drawn: MP Checked: AR Job Ref: JNP2227
Figure No:
Site Location
1.1
Revision:
-

Non Technical Summary
Figure 1.2
Site Boundary
RPS
February 2010
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Legend
Proposed Site Boundary
Relocated Coke Store
SEP Site
Construction Laydown Area
File: O:\2227B Sustainable Energy Plant\Tech\GIS\2227D_100204MP_SiteBoundary_ES.mxd
© Crown copyright, All rights reserved. 2010 License number 0100031673
Rev: Date: Amendment: Name: Checked:
Data Source: RPS 2010
Status: FINAL
Mallams Court 18 Milton Park Abingdon Oxon Ox14 4RP
T 01235 821888 F 01235 820351 E rpsox@rpsgroup.com W www.rpsroup.com
Client: Brunner Mond & E.ON
Project: Lostock Sustainable Energy Plant
Title:
Scale: A3 @ 1:5,000
0 125 250 m
Date: Feb 2010 Datum: OSGB36 Projection: BNG
Drawn: MP Checked: AR Job Ref: JNP2227
Figure No:
Site Boundary
1.2
Revision:
-

Non Technical Summary
Figure 2
Proposed Site Layout Plan
RPS
February 2010
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Legend
Site Boundary
Proposed Buildings
Buildings to be retained
Fuel Reception Hall
Office & Amenities
Switch Building
Combustion Residues
Handling
Fuel Storage
Boiler House
Switch Gear House
Steam Turbine Room
Air Cooled Condenser
Ash Handling Facility
Flue Gas Treatment Building
Double Stacks
Rev: Date: Amendment: Name: Ckd:
Data Source: RPS 2010
Status: FINAL
O:\2227B Sustainable Energy Plant\Tech\AutoCAD\design dwgs\16384_P_0100.dwg
Crown Copyright, All rights reserved. 2010 License Number 0100031673
Mallams Court 18 Milton Park Abingdon Oxon OX14 4RP
T 01235 821888 F 01235 820351 E rpsox@rpsgroup.com W www.rpsgroup.com
Client: Brunner Mond & E.On
Project: Lostock Sustainable Energy Plant
Title: Proposed Site Layout Plan
Scale @A3 1:2,000
0 20 40 60 80 100
m
Date: Feb 2010
Datum: OSGB36
Projection: BNG
Drawn: MP Checked: AR Job Ref: JNP2227
Figure Number: 2 Rev: -
N

Non Technical Summary
Figure 3
Photomontage of Proposed SEP
RPS
February 2010
Lostock SEP
Environmental Statement

Existing view
Ref: O:\6769b Lostock EFW LVIA\Tech\Graphics\CS\Phom\ 6769D_100202RM_Phoms.indd
Proposed view
Lostock Sustainable Energy Plant Date of photograph: 09/12/2009
Lens type: 50mm
Distance to site: 0.6km
OS reference: 368182,373549
Direction to site: North
Viewpoint height: 28m AOD
Horizontal field of view: 75 0
Viewing distance: 300mm @ A3
Figure 3 Existing/Proposed Viewpoint
Lostock Sustainable Energy Plant